Meeting the OW

[Chucklecheeks]

I need to meet the OW. DH moved out to live with her last week after what's looking like a six month affair. We have two children so they will be meeting her at some point. I need to see and speak to her. Am I mad?

I won't even consider the kids meeting her till I have.

With child arrangement orders there is no longer any use of 'Resident or non resident' parent

Funny that, ive heard it several time just in the last 7 days from about 6 different judges!

It will take time to fall out of use, people still talk of custody and access which has been long gone for nearly thirty years.

As it is still new, were the judges referring to previously made orders, as they can't be making residence orders.

Given I've just studied family law for my degree including writing a dissertation on shared parenting provisions I think you are slightly mental.

And yes a parent who doesn't live with the DC has to make more of an effort to ensure the DC know they are loved. I am unsure why you would take exception to that TBH.

IMO it is unlikely to fall out of general use because in many cases it is actually a more accurate way of describing the situation.

I think you are an arse for using someone's thread looking for support to push an anti-MN agenda tbh.

Yes the benefits system stuff is relevant because care of children is not an exclusively legal issue. In fact it is a minority of families who end up in the legal system.

They were child arangement orders, every single one of them had the end result of child living in one house and another parent who the child did not live with a few of them had walked in with 50:50 and walked out with where the child resides compleatly changed.

It was mosly used during explanations of why the parent was being ordered to stop piss arseing around with CB/CMS and why they had to admit the child was not resident with them.

Offred,

I agree with you that parents that make no or minimal effort with their children upon separation ought to be able to claim they 'share care'.

But what of the parent that has their children living with them 60:40 or 70:30, how can you describe them as non resident parents.

I read a judgement recently in a leave to remove case, the mother tried to play the primary carer card but the fact that the children lived with the father 5 nights out of 14 which was considered shared care trumped any notion of primary carer.

I'm sorry to go off on a tangent, I empathise with the OP but any talk of stopping contact will not help the situation for the children.

I cannot understand the selfishness of parents that think it is ok to foist their new relationships on their children in this manner and I agree with Offred that it often backfires on them and impacts negatively on their relationship with the children.

Ok sonny but on this thread the DC do not stay with their dad 60/40 or 70/30 atm.

The dad is asking to have some overnights in the OW's house.

If it were me I would explain that it is unfortunate that he has chosen to move straight in with the OW as I'd have no issue at all with him having overnights in his own house but that I was worried his relationship with his children (and their potential relationship with OW) would be disrupted if he didn't allow them to come to terms with him now being a dad who lives out of their family home before introducing another person into the situation.

Him coming back to the family home would also be disruptive tbh.

The thread is about a parent stating that they are considering stopping contact with a strong enough reason to take that action.

I found your statement claiming that NRP's have to try harder to show their children that they love them an insult to all parents that have had to fight for their relationships with their children against a controlling 'primary carer'.

My child lives with me only slightly less than their other parent, the benefits system do not even class me as a parent. And you think what they say is relevant? My child would have a few choice words for you.

Good luck with your degree, if you are basing your dissertation on dubious findings from the shared care in Australia then I fear you are on shaky ground.

You have also called me a 'mental arse'. Showing your lack of class there.

He decided to move out. He decided to move in with OW. All that is fine for him, he is perfectly entitled to do that, but he needs to give his DC a chance to feel secure with all those changes IMO.

He's gotta see that his DC will be, fairly or unfairly, feeling abandoned by his behaviour atm and he needs to make them feel secure again otherwise they are likely to absolutely hate the OW and feel disconnected with him.

But this is his home now and unfortunately the OP cannot police who the father has at his home when the children are there. Unless there is evidence of the children being at immediate risk of harm.

I sympathise.

At no time at all in this thread has the op said anything about stopping contact.

She has not even hinted at it

This thread is not about you.

Yes, NRP have to work harder because they dont live with the DC. How fair or unfair that is for the adults involved in the situation is irrelevant I'm afraid.

You are clearly very convinced that your personal experiences and views qualify you as superior to virtually everyone else.

FYI I got a score of 90 for my work on shared parenting.

Well, she has.

The father wants the children to live with him some of the time, the OP states this will not happen until she has personally vetted the fathers girlfriend or on her terms.

That's a little more than a hint.

And no, no-one can stop him from having anyone he likes at his home.

It still doesn't make it a good idea for the DC. If he doesn't think of them first HIS relationship with them will suffer.

She has not said she will stop contact. She said she won't support overnights in the OW home.

You are making things up.

needsasock THe OP has made it very clear that if the OW is not willing to meet with her, then she will prevent the DC's from having O/N contact with their DF. Given the distances the op has said are involved, that could be considered contact blocking:

" If she says no then they will not be going over night. I know I don't have a legal leg to stand on but until I have met her they will not be going. "

It's not about you either Offred, you were describing your own experiences in the thread before I referred to my own.

Are not both of our personal experience relevant, you have exes that don't bother to parent, I have an ex that has spent many years trying to destroy the relations between my child and me.

Are we not just different sides of the same coin.

And if you look at the facts from Australia most shared parenting orders reverted to primary carer arrangements within a few years. DV provisions were interrupted and the majority of parents were left confused about their rights in the system which increased conflict and decreased positive outcomes for DC.

The shared parenting that works in Australia is shared parenting that was agreed outside court by parents who were amenable to it anyway.

I am not making things up Offred, as Pretty has just illustrated.

I agree with you on the girlfriend. I have experience in this area representing myself after raising a child protection case.

You poor thing op.

He sounds like an insensitive twat.

I would stress it's way too much too soon for the dc- and hope he realises that.

I think it is absolutely wrong for OP to ask to meet OW before she allows her to be involved in DC lives btw.

Discussing shared parenting and using the Australian model is a whole other thread.

There are people against it in Australia with their own agenda's. Those against it in this country tried to use that.

The fact of the matter is that a child will benefit hugely from having both parents actively involved in their life unless it is unsafe for them, due to either parent.

How anyone can argue against this in the 21st century and say they don't have an agenda is beyond me.

In my own case, my child is with me only slightly less, but I know I have more quality one one one time.

The children are not going to like having to 'share' Dad with some stranger that is being foisted upon them.

Not having over nights does not mean not having contact.